IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v53y2024i2p268-284..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Working Time Remedies Beyond Brexit: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Another v Agnew and Others

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Rodgers
  • Oxana Golynker

Abstract

On 4 October 2023, the ‘long-anticipated’ judgment in PCC v Agnew was handed down by the Supreme Court. This case concerned claims for holiday pay made by police officers and other civilian staff employed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The Supreme Court had to decide two main issues. The first was whether police officers could take advantage of the more generous remedy provisions in respect of holiday pay claims in the Employment Rights Order 1996 (ERO) (which largely corresponds to the UK Employment Rights Act 1996) as opposed to the Working Time Regulations. The second issue was the correct interpretation of the ERO provisions. As well as the important practical implications of the case, there are also interesting jurisprudential issues that arise. The case deals with the interpretation of European Union (EU) derived rights in the labour context. This is a sensitive area, given that access to EU interpretive mechanisms usually equates to a more progressive reading of rights, and this fans the flame of UK government scepticism to both the EU and working time rights. This article discusses the particular approach to statutory interpretation taken by the Supreme Court and the implications of this approach for the progressive interpretation of EU-derived employment rights going forward.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Rodgers & Oxana Golynker, 2024. "Working Time Remedies Beyond Brexit: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Another v Agnew and Others," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 53(2), pages 268-284.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:2:p:268-284.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwae007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:2:p:268-284.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.